The reason reputation can be managed is that both its operational and expectation management underpinnings are themselves business processes that can be managed. Adverse reputational events represent a blossoming of failures of those underpinning processes -- a blossoming that can be mitigated with a recognized history of effective control that elicits from stakeholders forgiveness (read, expectation such an event will not happen again).

Nielsen NV, formerly Nielsen Holdings NV, is a Netherlands-based company engaged in information and measurement services. Since the advent of commercial television, it has been the standard for tracking and valuing viewership so time can be priced for advertising. The company reported earlier this month that it had discovered a glitch in its database that may have influenced its numbers since March of this year. Steven DiCarlo at the Daily Digest News suggests this could affect the company's reputation. Consensiv's Jonathan Salem Baskin explains why the company may be forgiven. Read more from Consensiv.

Quantitative measures of reputational value can bring much needed objectivity to this discussion. The data illustrated below show that Nielsen's reputational value metric dropped from the 94-96th percentile in late September to the 88-90th percentile this past week. Using standards developed by Consensiv for reputational control, a material change in reputation is evidenced by a persistent drop over 8 weeks. For control purposes, these data suggest intervention should be considered. Using standards developed by Steel City Re for indemnification, the drop these past two weeks is still within the bounds of normal historic volatility.

The data show that around $1billion of the company's market value (6%) can be reasonably ascribed to reputation value. The data also show that the company's reputational health is worrisome, which is a graphic way of illustrating the financial impact of the debate between and among stakeholders -- such as DiCarlo and Baskin.